Related Articles

One Comment

  1. 1

    Jon Hunt

    Sorry Professor, but I think that you have spent too much time studying economics and not enough time studying medicine! It is not a very well-reasoned article.

    What is it that you trying to imply? That doctors do the test hoping that it will be positive so they can make a few dollars? A bit unethical of them isn’t it? This article suggests more questions than whichever one it answers.

    For instance, how do you know the patients were not given the same information as you quoted but asked for the test regardless, because they can live with impotence and incontinence but not cancer? You seem to suggest that the study you mentioned is new, how do you know that previous research hadn’t suggested you should do a PSA?

    For your information, routine PSA screening hasn’t been recommended for several years at least. The sensible question to ask is, why weren’t these guidelines being followed, which seems to be your assertion, although you don’t give any evidence this may have been the case.

    The problem with not using FFS is that it doesn’t matter how much work you do you get paid the same, so perhaps I should call in for a Monday sickie once in a while like everybody else.

    You suggest that: “Doctors are human and if we pay them according to piecework, of course they will do more pieces. Who wouldn’t?” Yes. And there is something wrong with doing more work? Or, rather, getting paid more to do more work?

    Your basic assumption is that too many PSA tests have been done with the aim to improve the income of, I guess, urologists. Unfortunately you have not presented any evidence that I can see that this is the case.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

© 2015 – 2019 Croakey | Website: Rock Lily Design

right-share-menu

Follow Croakey